Concerns about Carry

[Lurper]

gvf
Your fears are misplaced. However, when one chooses to carry one must assume a certain risk.

Fish got railroaded by an anti-gun D.A. who decided to make an example of him. AZ law does not require retreat. Until the Fish case however, the burden of proving the shooting was justified laid with the defendant. Now, the law has been changed so that the state must prove the shooting was not justified (duh). A bill was passed and made it to the governor's desk that would have led to a review of Fish's case (and a few others), but she refused to sign it. Mr. Fish should have had better representation as a good attorney with firearms/2A exprience could have better countered the prosecution's contentions that; Mr Fish carried a weapon that was more powerful than law enforcement carried (10mm) so he was looking to kill; that he carried hollowpoints because they are designed to kill. There are many in the state working to help Fish. Hopefully justice will be served.

But, remember he is the exception not the rule.

[KALIFORNIST]

The fact that hollow points are used as a negative by DAs is why I use Winchester Ranger T ammo in most of my handguns.Its a great round and I would love to here a DA bad mouth ammo designed for police use.People of the jury he used deadly hollow points designed for cop use only!!Only police are allowed to have deadly bullets so he is a killer!!haha.only draw back is I cant by them at the local gun shop.

[Duxman]

GVF,

For every incident like the Fish case - there are hundreds of incidents where the prescence of a CCW has saved many people's lives.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/framedex.html

This is the gun defense clock which tracks how many AMERICAN gun owners have stopped a criminal attack with a gun.

So push your fears away.

But do get a good attorney on retainer. So just in case an incident like the above happens (Fish case) - start out with - I want to speak to my attorney.

A lot of people fail to point this out when studying this case. If Fish had clammed up and invoked his right to counsel in the first place - he would not be in this situation.

[Lurper]

Let me share what my attorney has on the back of his business card:
He recommends that no matter what the circumstances are, you say this to the police when they arrive.
"I refuse to consent to any search whatsoever. As such, I do not consent to a search of my premises, my person, my immediate location or any vehicle or effects. I hereby exercise my rights as enumerated by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article Two of the Arizona Constitution. I demand to have my attorney present prior to and throughout any questioning at all. Additionally, I wish to consult with my attorney prior to any discussion with law enforcement officers on the subject of waiver."

IMO, this is the best course of action when involved in a confrontation. The less said, the better. It is another reason why you should play out scenarios in your mind, "what if" including what you say before, during and after the confrontation.

[gvf]

Thanks for very helpful advice - (I wonder if Fish contacted his attorney before questioning.....)

[Duxman]

I am going to steal that quote from you Lurper.